PEOPLE v ESCORDIAL Ponente: Mendoza, J.

Date: January 16, 2002 How the case reached the SC: Automat c re! ew o" a dec s on o" the #$C FACTS: %ame o" Accused: Anthony &scord a' %ame o" (""ended )arty: M che''e Darunday, &rma *'anca, Ma. $eresa +a''a!er ,acts Pet t oners were a'' ' ! n- n the -round "'oor o" a .oard n- house. (n the n -ht o" the cr me /Decem.er 20, 11102, a 3ee) was )ar4ed n "ront o" the .oard n- house where ch 'dren /'ater w tnesses2 were )'ay n-. $hey were to'd to -o home .y a man who wou'd .e 'ater dent " ed as the accused. 5h 'e the three were s'ee) n-, &rma was awa4ened .y the )resence o" a man. $h s man had h s head co!ered w th a t6sh rt to )re!ent dent " cat on and carr ed a 4n "e a.out "our nches 'on-. He as4ed "or her money and was a.'e to -et P700 "rom her. She then turned to the other )et t oners who were a'ready awa4e .y that t me and was a.'e to ta4e P8100 "rom M che''e and none "rom $eresa .ecause her .a- was n the other room. A"ter ta4 n- the money, they were to'd to .' nd"o'd one another. He then )roceeded to ha!e carna' 4now'ed-e w th M che''e. M che''e sa d that a'thou-h she was .' nd"o'ded and cou'd not see, she cou'd "ee' that the man had no co!er on h s "ace when he was ra) n- her. She "e't that h s chest was rou-h and had some scars. 5hen he )'aced her hands on h s na)e, she "e't that t was a'so rou-h /4e'o d2. (n the other hand, &rma c'a med she was a.'e to see throu-h her .' nd"o'd and that she saw the man9s "ace. A"ter he " n shed ra) n- M che''e, he sat down on the .ed and ta'4ed to the women. He then ra)ed M che''e "or the second t me, threaten n- her so she9d concede that t wou'd .e much worse " he9d ca'' others /com)an ons2 "rom outs de to ra)e her. A"ter wh ch /a.out 12:80am2 he 'e"t. P(8 $anc nco was one o" those who res)onded to the cr me. A re)ort was made n the )o' ce stat on. Su.se:uent searches, throu-h the descr )t ons o" the )et t oners, the ch 'dren )'ay n- n the 3ee) n "ront o" the .oard nhouse, and others 'ed to the ) n)o nt n- o" accused6a))e''ant. Accused was )'ay n- n .as4et.a'' when the )o' ce ; n! ted< h m to the Ponte!edra )o' ce stat on "or :uest on n-. At the stat on M che''e saw h m and she dent " ed h m as h s a''e-ed ro..er and ra) st. He was a'so .rou-ht to the *aco'od )o' ce stat on so that the other w tnesses cou'd dent "y h m. $hey ) c4ed h m out o" "our n the ' ne6u). Accused c'a ms that he went home to Ponte!edra, %e-ros (cc denta' at the t me o" the nc dent as test " ed .y three other w tnesses "or the de"ense. Procedura': #$C: +u 'ty o" #o..ery w th ra)e Automat ca''y re! ewed /.y Cert orar 2 .y SC. DECISION: Ac:u tted on the -round o" reasona.'e dou.t. HELD WON the warrantless arrest was valid? It was invalid b t was ! red d e t" a!! sed#a$$ellants %ail re t" & esti"n warrantless arrest be%"re arrai'n(ent )waiver*+ =a' d warrant'ess searches are enumerated under #u'e 118, >7 o" the #e! sed #u'es o" Cr m na' Procedure: /a2 5hen, n h s )resence, the )erson to .e arrested has comm tted, s actua''y comm tt n-, or s attem)t n- to comm t an o""ense?

/.2 /c2

5hen an o""ense has 3ust .een comm tted and he has )ro.a.'e cause to .e' e!e .ased on )ersona' 4now'ed-e o" "acts or c rcumstances that the )erson to .e arrested has comm tted t? and 5hen the )erson to .e arrested s a )r soner who has esca)ed "rom a )ena' esta.' shment or )'ace where he s ser! n- " na' 3ud-ment or s tem)orar 'y con" ned wh 'e h s case s )end n-, or has esca)ed wh 'e .e n- trans"erred "rom one con" nement to another.

@n these cases, the cr me too4 )'ace on Decem.er 20, 1116. *ut, accused6a))e''ant was arrested on'y on January 8, 1110, a wee4 a"ter the occurrence o" the cr me. As the arrest n- o"" cers were not )resent when the cr me was comm tted, they cou'd not ha!e ;)ersona' 4now'ed-e o" the "acts and c rcumstances o" the comm ss on o" the cr me<. Persona' 4now'ed-e o" "acts n arrests w thout a warrant must .e .ased u)on ;)ro.a.'e cause< wh ch means ;an actua' .e' e" or reasona.'e -rounds o" sus) c on.< /#easona.'e: n the a.sence o" actua' .e' e" o" the arrest n- o"" cers, the sus) c on that the )erson to .e arrested s )ro.a.'y -u 'ty o" comm tt n- the o""ense s .ased on actua' "acts2 WON eviden!e sh" ld have been e,!l ded b- the RTC %"r %ail re t" a$$rise hi( with his ri'ht t" re(ain silent and his ri'ht t" !" nsel? %o. He has not shown that, as a resu't o" h s custod a' nterro-at on, the )o' ce o.ta ned any statement "rom h m A whether ncu')atory or eBcu')atory 6 wh ch was used n e! dence a-a nst h m. WON eviden!e re'ardin' the identi%i!ati"n "% a!! sed was inad(issible be!a se "% absen!e "% !" nsel? (C$6(,6C(C#$ @D&%$@,@CA$@(%: $h s shou'd ha!e .een nadm ss .'e .ecause dent " cat on o" an uncounse'ed accused made n a )o' ce ' ne6u), or n a show6u) "or that matter, a"ter the start o" the custod a' n!est -at on s nadm ss .'e as e! dence a-a nst h m. Howe!er, a-a n, "a 'ure to o.3ect when these ) eces o" e! dence were )resented const tuted a wa !er. $&S$@M(%@&S (, $H& 5@$%&SS&S /re-ard n- the dent ty o" the accused2: shou'd .e re-arded as nadm ss .'e under the "ru t o" the )o sonous tree doctr ne. @n court. @%6C(C#$ @D&%$@,@CA$@(%: nadm ss . ' ty o" these out6o"6court dent " cat ons does not render the n6court dent " cat on o" accused6a))e''ant nadm ss .'e "or .e n- the ;"ru ts o" the )o sonous tree.< As t was not der !ed or drawn "rom the ''e-a' arrest o" accused6a))e''ant or as a conse:uence thereo", t s adm ss .'e as e! dence a-a nst h m. )Credibilit- "% the witnesses were als" dis! ssed*